stevedebi

I just looked at an AT&T map. It showed pretty much continuous coverage here out west, except for the extreme desert areas. All of California was showing 2G capability. Having said that, there are reports over on the C-Max Energi forum of it stopping working in Sacramento and Merced. I'll certainly complain if my service ceases- they promised 5 years of service when I bought the vehicle in 2014.

Still working in the San Fernando Valley (C-Max Energi here).

Thanks, I missed that. I'm wondering if they ever changed the FFE. The C-Max got hammered for the wrong MPG (and they made changes), but the Fusion was OK. Anyway, I appreciate the link.

That is a 2013, which can be done with a simple change to the BCM.

Well, it would have worked for the 2013 at the dealer as well! Not sure I want to invest on an OBD reader.

I don't know. I believe the same dealer software was used to turn on the 2013. It just doesn't work on the 2014. I think they removed the option in favor of factory setting. It may have to do with the Canadian requirement to NOT be able to turn it off. Can someone with FORScan check to see if the setting is available? I'd be willing to invest in the software if it works.

The Ford charger is not designed for 240v. They have a separate charger for that.

Well, it depends on the part of the country you live in. There is little demand in rural areas and in the wide spaces of the Southwest. More here in SoCal, with the urban cycle. But I agree that price and infrastructure are the two biggest problems.

Ah, good of them. I didn't know that. I'm not sure why Ford would pony up extra cash, unless they just wanted it sooner.

Yep, smart to study the competition and see what they can "borrow" without breaking any patents!

Lets see, Ford sold 780,354 F-150s last year - each one making up to 13K profit. Those 400K reservations cover how many years? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/31/tesla-s-model-3-could-destroy-elon-musk-s-company.html But one can also find pie-in-the-sky articles that support Tesla. Most of the ones I've read are just fanboy hype. Time will tell. The problem with reporting on Tesla today is that so many articles come from a deep slant, either for or against electrics. But as several articles have pointed out, it is easy to build an expensive car in low numbers and make a profit; it is much harder to build a cheap car in high numbers and make a profit.

I'm in between. I think it is technically feasible, but not cost effective. Most folks would not pay the money needed for that kind of upgrade (swapping everything out), and Ford is under no obligation to do it for free - folks bought their cars knowing that the current Sync was installed and part of the package they were paying for.

The articles came out a while back, now when I search it only shows how to change out the air cleaner in the Prius! As I recall, if the air is dirty enough, the catalyst will actually reduce the pollution such that the tailpipe air was better than the incoming air. But I didn't research it much. I'm not sure I believe it either, especially since in the past 20 years the air has been getting cleaner in the US anyway (so it may not be true any more).

Well, it hasn't actually been passed into law. Still not sure if it is useful, considering that they get so much power from fossil fuel anyway. But then Holland is a small country, and folks ride a lot of bikes there anyway. I'd expect hydrogen to get big if they actually did this.

I should have been more specific. When running, modern ICE cars are pretty clean in terms of air. I was recalling reports that in some cases a hybrid will actually clean the air - it comes out the tailpipe cleaner than it came in. The EV will not put out pollutants, but the energy used does come from polluting sources. The recent reports about health costs of ICE vehicles (most recently diesels) are based on assumptions and averages, not hard numbers. The pollution has been studied. When you factor in the cost of electricity, EVs are not necessarily always as environmentally clean as folks think. A lot of it depends on what kind of pollution you are considering, and how the electricity is generated. Both EV, PHEV, and hybrid cost more pollution to build than an ICE vehicle. http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/06/where-electric-vehicles-actually-cause-more-pollution-than-gas-cars/397136/ http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions I'm not considering CO2, I'm speaking of air pollution. But my primary point in all this is the business model not yet being viable, due to economic costs, and that the range and convenience issues are still too high for popular adoption.

No, because I don't particularly believe the health scares. We are still putting far more pollution out with EV cars than the newest ICE vehicles, or hybrid vehicles. Those news stories were based on "calculated" costs, not actual costs; there are no hard numbers. I agree that it isn't economically feasible to make oil synthetically yet, just as I think it isn't economically feasible to have an electric car - yet. Although I read of a battery technology that has recently been invented that has a lot of promise for lowering costs and making electric more competitive. This isn't the article I read, but this is the tech: http://ipfrontline.com/2016/02/biosolar-applies-for-patents/ Look, I'm not "anti-electric". I just think the economics are not there. I love driving EV in my Energi, for as long as the battery lasts. Then I love getting 40 MPG on the highway - using ICE.

Two different vendors. It is more like having subsidies on battery powered phones vs solar powered phones. But in any case, yes, I think you have it exactly. Subsidies are available based on the needs of the economy.

As I said, you don't have to get oil from fossils, it can be synthesized. And yes, the free market will eventually catch up, and it will be economic compared to gas. In my opinion we don't have an alternative yet, at least one that is as cheap and convenient as gasoline.

Air quality? Not with the current power plant sources we have. And at the moment (and probably for the foreseeable future), we are not dependent on foreign oil, unless we want to be. They were considering exporting oil before the market slumped. Sorry, I stand by my statement. The playing field for cars is level - Tesla just isn't interested in playing on it. Not that I expect them to, that is their business model. But until oil naturally depletes (and there is no choice), the economics are not really there.

No, I mean that Tesla chooses to not participate in the ICE subsidies. They are available, but they perfer an electric paradigm. It is still a level playing field for all manufacturers. Profit/loss is profit/loss. The bottom line is that they cannot remain in business unless they turn a profit. It will be interesting to see how the Model 3 turns out. And long term, if they have to replace batteries under the 10 year / 150K warranty, that will also cost. Plus the cost of their supercharging network infrastructure and continuing electric costs? That is a lot of overhead, and the profits for a 35K car are going to be less than for a 100K car. But as I said, time will tell. By 2019 they will be out of subsidies, and have to make or break their business by themselves. As it should be - economics should drive the market.

Well, as I often say, time will tell. But even after the charging stations are built, they have to be powered, which costs money - and reducing fossil fuels, or taxes of carbon and that sort of thing, will increase electricity costs. I think the days of "free" supercharging are limited.

As to oil/gas subsidies, that is a level field for all car companies, not just an individual one. Look, the company is still losing money. That cannot go on forever. http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/10/tesla-is-hemorrhaging-money-despite-millions-in-govt-subsidies/ I found this in the LA Times http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

The Volt can make some use of the ICE at higher speeds. It isn't well advertised, but they do have a small connection to the motor, for a bit more power. But it is nothing like the C-Max or Prius designs and cannot get as much out of the ICE.

Tesla has a good business practice, but they are not able to stay in business without government subsidies, on the vehicles and on their financing. When they are self sufficient and have a range similar to ICE at similar prices, then I may consider them.

I don't argue that the environment needs to be kept clean. Today's ICE vehicles are the cleanest ever.